Sharon Hodgson: On the same point, does my right hon. Friend agree that the provision of hospices and MRI scanners, which would have taken many years of fundraising, are worth while areas of lottery funding and that another area of equal worth would be the provision of cancer drugs—such as Herceptin, cetuximab and temozolomide—while they are awaiting NICE approval?

National Lottery

Stuart Bell: I am grateful for that. The hon. Gentleman's remarks will be passed on to the appropriate commissioners. He should bear in mind that the Church of England has 45 dioceses—43 of which contain more than 13,000 parishes—covering all of England, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, the Isles of Scilly and a little bit of Wales, so he is in good company.

Michael Fabricant: 8th century.

David Taylor: When my hon. Friend is next in contact with the cathedrals and dioceses throughout the country, will he encourage them not to be shy about charging entry to cathedrals given the evidence and experience at Westminster Abbey, which is only a few yards away from this place, where the introduction of admission charges to discourage the use of the abbey as a clearing house for London tourist guides has been successful and has not reduced the number of people who genuinely want to visit one of the historic treasures of the United Kingdom?

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will be aware that cathedrals receive only £1 million per year in English Heritage grants although they generate £151 million in direct and indirect spending for their cities. Anyone who passes Westminster Abbey any day of the week will testify to the popularity of the venue. It is one of the top tourist attractions in the city. In a sense, it charges, and it is a worthwhile charge. I would encourage other cathedrals to follow its example.

Peter Viggers: There are some 15 million British citizens overseas, of whom a considerable number are eligible to register as they have lived overseas for fewer than 15 years. There are 45 constituencies without any overseas registered voters at all, but there are four overseas voters registered in the Ribble Valley constituency. If I were the hon. Member for Battersea, with a majority of 163, I would contemplate the fact that 150 overseas voters are registered in that constituency. Individual Members may wish to take those facts and figures into account.

Andrew Selous: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that answer, and I particularly commend the support that I have received from the diocese of St. Albans and my own bishop, the Bishop of Bedford, in this important area, but could the hon. Gentleman tell the House what proportion of funding and what importance centrally the Church places on this aspect of its work?

Celia Barlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One week ago today my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) raised a point of order about the visit by three Liberal Democrat MPs to his constituency without prior notice. You ruled that it is customary that when hon. Members visit another's constituency for political reasons, they notify that Member in advance. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) visited my constituency, Hove and Portslade, last month and attended St. Patrick's night shelter, which currently has funding difficulties. I have been in correspondence with all the parties concerned with the shelter. It is a sensitive local issue, which I consider highly unsuitable to become a political football in an uninspiring leadership campaign. Will you raise awareness of the rule among hon. Members? After last Thursday's result, the hon. Gentleman might find it opportune to spend more time in his own constituency, rather than in mine.

Charles Clarke: The Bill does not specifically concern the force amalgamations in the west midlands to which my hon. Friend has referred. West Midlands police, Staffordshire police and Warwickshire police are strongly in favour of the change, and West Mercia police is not, which is why I gave notice last week that I intend to lay an order in four months' time to bring about that change following the proper statutory period of consultation.

Charles Clarke: Local policing is central to neighbourhood policing and other matters. One of the exciting things that is happening in many parts of the country—I believe that that includes West Yorkshire—is opening police facilities in a wide range of areas such as schools, shopping centres and so on. Chief constables must examine the overall policing presence in their community, including the existing stations, and determine the best way in which to make an impact on their local communities. Much of the police estate was built decades—sometimes even centuries—ago, and reconfiguring it to fit the modern policing need is a key responsibility of the police in West Yorkshire or anywhere else. That is what they have to do, and they will do precisely that.

Charles Clarke: I shall deal specifically with that shortly because the coterminosity of the basic command unit and the local district council is critical. I accept my hon. Friend's implicit criticism—the performance of community safety partnerships has been patchy throughout the country. I could take him to some where genuinely outstanding work has been done in exactly the way that he would like, and to others where there has been a more desultory set of affairs. A key element of the Bill is strengthening the partnerships so that he and all hon. Members can have confidence that their local crime and disorder reduction partnership between the police and the local authorities works.

David Howarth: With regard to the new powers to give directions to police forces and authorities, does the Home Secretary not accept that there is something new here, because the requirement for a negative inspection report is to be removed? Does he not accept that, without that necessary buffer between him and police forces and authorities, he is, in effect, taking responsibility for the whole of policing in England and Wales—both its successes and its failures?

Boris Johnson: Does the Home Secretary agree that amendments on extradition would offer a good opportunity to clear up the grotesque anomaly whereby citizens of the United Kingdom accused of crimes against British interests in the UK can be extradited to America on the say-so of the American authorities, without any corresponding right in this country to demand that Americans should come here, without producing due cause? Is not it time that that anomaly were cleared up?

Nick Herbert: The Home Secretary may know that we are consulting on a range of options to achieve local accountability of the police. The situation in London is more difficult because the commissioner has national and local policing functions. His accountability is already very confused and the fact that he is accountable to a number of bodies is problematic. We shall consider carefully how that should be resolved, but we will not resile from the principle, which the Home Secretary and the Government have not accepted, that police forces should be locally accountable. There is a fundamental difference between us. Whereas there are many things about which we agree in relation to neighbourhood policing, his view is that it is acceptable for the police increasingly to be directed by the Government, which is the essence of the Bill. Our view is that police forces should be locally accountable.
	Concern has been expressed by a number of interested parties that a combined justice, community safety and custody inspectorate, as set out in part 4, will lose the expertise and focus present in existing inspectorates. We will want closely to examine this issue in Committee. Against that concern, which we should take seriously, is the fact that the cost of public inspection doubled from £250 million in 1997 to more than £550 million in 2002–03. There may also be significant advantages in creating a broader and more powerful inspectorate that is not so close to a particular department and can maintain its independence from Government more easily. I suspect that I am not alone in fearing that Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary was too easily deployed by the Government to support their desire to merge police forces.
	When the Bill was published, the Home Office's news release proclaimed that it would
	"instill a culture of respect in society",
	There is not a single measure in the Bill that begins to live up to that grandiose claim. The more high blown the rhetoric in the Government's respect agenda, the more certain we can be of its vacuity. Page 20 of the respect action plan is entitled "Everyone is Part of Everyone Else". I feel sure that the whole House would be intrigued to know what that means and how it will assist the fight against crime.
	Journalists are being briefed that the Bill is a "flagship measure", a crucial part of the Government's respect agenda. In fact, only a few of the proposals in the respect agenda have found their way into the Bill. Clauses 16 and 17 expand the use of parenting orders. Since only 31 such orders were made in the five years between June 2000 and 2005, reducing their use was not really an option. Yesterday, we read of an exciting new scheme under which Government "super nannies" are to descend, like Mary Poppins, on chaotic families. With the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety, the right hon. Member for Salford (Hazel Blears), as the Minister for respect and nanny-in-chief in charge, this scheme is, according to The Sunday Times, the latest phase of the Government's respect agenda. Cynics who suspect that this is another worthless gimmick to be dropped or forgotten in a few weeks' time are missing the point. The story made the front page of a newspaper, so it has done its job.
	The respect agenda is entirely remedial. It embodies the Government's view that problems can be solved only by centrally directed executive action. The Prime Minister once spoke about tackling the causes of crime. Today his focus is on enhancing police powers. A number of the Bill's proposals rely on the extension of police summary power and summary justice.
	Clause 12 allows conditional cautions to include punitive conditions. Schedule 4 will allow arresting officers to set bail conditions. However, those proposals raise a number of serious issues. First, under the new bail conditions, the police alone will be able to make significant restrictions on someone's liberty, such as by tagging and with curfews, before they have even decided that there is enough evidence to bring a criminal prosecution. The power to impose punitive conditions in cautions will effectively allow the police to act as investigator, prosecutor and judge.
	The Magistrates Association has said that is "extremely concerned" that the courts are simply being shut out of the process, but that appears to be just the beginning of a fundamental shake-up of the criminal justice system. According to an obviously well-informed commentator,
	"Ministers are drawing up plans to bypass the courts in the handling of hundreds of thousands more low-level crimes. Defendants who plead guilty to most offences with non-custodial sentences would, under their proposals, be sentenced by prosecutors, in consultation with the police. According to one document circulating in Whitehall, about half of the two million cases heard by magistrates every year could be processed without the costly and time-consuming business of a trial."
	The Prime Minister has persuaded himself that we have reached a watershed, where the "rules of the game"—by which he means the quaint idea that convictions require a trial first—need changing to deal with not just terrorism, but antisocial behaviour. The judiciary may take a different view.
	The second concern is that the Prime Minister says that summary justice will be tough and hard, but it may, in fact, mean soft justice. The maximum penalty for a conditional caution will be £500—an attractive alternative to a stiffer fine or even a custodial sentence for offenders committing actual bodily harm, affray, criminal damage, possession of class A drugs or carrying knives. Summary justice will increasingly mean two-tier justice, with a "get out of jail with your credit card" option for those who can afford to pay the fine or the fixed penalty notice for antisocial behaviour.
	The third concern is that we need to debate whether all police officers should be empowered to exercise summary justice. There might be a case for restricting certain powers, such as the setting of bail conditions, to more senior constables, who have the experience and judgment to exercise them with discretion. Alternatively, we should consider whether such powers should be exercised at least with the scrutiny of a more senior officer. Those important issues need to be debated more thoroughly and examined closely in Committee.
	When the Bill was published, the Home Secretary said that it
	"would help to free up police time to deal with more serious crime".
	In fact, there is just one measure in the Bill that might free up police time—the provision in clause 10 to allow chief officers to accredit trading standards inspectors to issue penalty notices. If the Government were serious about freeing up police time, the Bill would tackle the bureaucracy that prevents police officers from doing their job. It would end the requirement on police officers to record every stop that they make, filling in a foot-long form that takes seven minutes to complete. It would address the fact that it takes three and a half hours for an officer to process an arrest and that only 17 per cent. of a police officer's time is spent on patrol. It would give chief constables greater discretion over the employment of support staff, thus releasing warranted officers for front-line duties. It would introduce a modern and flexible pay and employment regime. It would replace incessant top-down demands for reporting, which sap so much time and morale across our public services, with simplified performance measurement. It would free up the police to fight crime, rather than to file. But the Bill does none of those things.
	The closest that the Bill gets to police modernisation is in clause 4, which would allow standardisation of the powers of community support officers. The balance of the exact powers involved will need discussion in Committee. We favour giving chief constables as much discretion as possible in that respect, as in many others, but those provisions are being introduced before we have had a proper debate about the effectiveness of CSOs. I strongly support their deployment, but the Home Office's own evaluation, published earlier this year, found
	"no evidence that CSOs were having a measurable impact on the level of . . . crime or . . . antisocial behaviour".
	The Government's boast that they will recruit 25,000 CSOs by 2008 must be matched by both the funding to ensure that CSOs remain employed, because funding for them is tapered, and a more rigorous assessment of how to deploy them effectively.
	The fight against terrorism will remain at the top of the police agenda, so we welcome the power in clause 8 to extend police search powers in airports. For the same reason, we will be open-minded about the power in clause 9 to gather bulk passenger information for ship and aircraft journeys in the UK. We will want to be persuaded that that is necessary and that it will contain adequate safeguards.
	The Bill's technical amendments to the Extradition Act 2003 appear to be acceptable, although we will subject them to detailed scrutiny. We will seek to raise the issue of the UK-US extradition treaty that my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) raised in an intervention on the Home Secretary. It has not been ratified by Congress and its one-sided operation is a serious cause for concern. The treaty was sold as being necessary to deal with terrorism and serious crime, but is being used to require the extradition of offenders who have a minimal connection with the US. We will propose amendments to restrict extradition to the US under the Extradition Act to terrorism cases until such time as full reciprocity is granted by the US, and will place safeguards to ensure that, in future, extradition will not happen if the alleged crime could be tried here, under domestic jurisdictions, and there is no clear causal link with the US.
	In his Dimbleby lecture last year, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner called for a national debate on policing, and said:
	"It is time to decide what kind of police service we want."
	This is the right time to have such a debate. Important issues are at stake: the independence of police forces; how they should be accountable; and how they should be organised both to accommodate the demand for neighbourhood policing and to meet the renewed threat of domestic terrorism. The Bill is not much of an answer to those questions. It reflects the Government's preoccupation with the incessant reorganisation of, and intervention in, public services, but it shies away from the tougher, but essential, work force modernisation agenda that would truly enhance police performance. It places new summary powers in the hands of the police, but it also weakens their local accountability—an uncomfortable mix, particularly when public trust in the service has reached a record low.
	There are measures in the Bill that are of value, so we will not seek to divide the House. However, we will seek to improve the Bill to check the powers of the Home Secretary and to enhance the local accountability of police forces. We will want to scrutinise carefully the new summary powers to be granted to officers. We all want to see police forces that provide value for money, instil public confidence and are effective in the fight against crime. We will work constructively to achieve those aims.

Lynne Featherstone: This is rather a sneaky Bill and, potentially, a pernicious one. If not substantially amended in Committee, it will reduce the freedom of the individual, increase the power of the state, remove the autonomy and capability of bodies on whom we rely to hold the police to account, allow direct Government intervention in police business without any objective basis on which to do so, increase the surveillance society; extend summary justice; possibly damage community relations and run the risk of increasing human rights abuses in prisons. Even the seemingly welcome development of involving the local community in policing has the potential to create dangers and difficulties, so there is much to be done in Committee.
	To begin on a more amenable note, however, we support a number of the Bill's provisions. The incorporation of the Central Police Training and Development Authority and the Police Information Technology Organisation into a national policing improvement agency is a logical and sensible step forward. It almost goes without saying that we support the Government in their attempt to tackle better the problems caused by computer hacking. Given their penchant for creating surveillance databases, whether on national identity or on DNA, the security of those databases is paramount. Whatever the dangers they pose to civil liberties, they must be secure. Of course we support the Bill's proposal to tackle the illegal possession of indecent photographs of children and, indeed, the harmonisation and the extension of powers for community support officers.
	The proposal that the Independent Police Complaints Commission should take on the role of ensuring that complaints and misconduct in the immigration and asylum system are properly investigated is another welcome measure. Only last week, I visited the IPCC, which will now investigate complaints against immigration and nationality personnel and will exercise specified enforcement functions. That new area of expertise is a perfect translation of its function to investigate police complaints. Such work is extremely sensitive and the proposal will not only create a better system but, equally vitally, it will improve public opinion of the system.
	Before I move on to the meat of Liberal Democrat concerns about the Bill, I shall touch on the section on extradition. I shall not go into detail as most of the proposals are technical. However, it is not lost on us that the Government's track record on matters connected with extradition is hardly exemplary, given that they have so singularly and spectacularly failed to deal with the unfair, unequal and embarrassing nature of our extradition arrangements with the United States. We give the US what they want—all they have to do is demonstrate to us that the person in question is the person they want—whereas when we want someone, we have show evidence against that person.

Lynne Featherstone: Yes, that is it.
	Could the proposal allow one persistent, complaining constituent to divert resources on unreasonable complaints? I am a local councillor—I am sure that other. Members are or have been local councillors—and it is not unknown for those who should the loudest for our attention to hijack resources, time and issues on a repeated and regular basis. Those who need police action and who cannot get a police response will not necessarily trigger that function or use that power.
	On the extension of powers on antisocial behaviour, youth offending teams will be able to issue parenting orders if they believe not only that a child is engaging in antisocial behaviour, but that a child may engage in such behaviour, which continues a worrying trend of legislation involving the prediction of bad behaviour. Although the Government's intention is obviously to help all parents to ensure that their children do not engage in bad behaviour in the future, and to help those parents who are not currently coping—which is a measure that I heartily support—the proposal may stigmatise children who have done no wrong.
	When I intervened on the Home Secretary, I mentioned that youth offending teams have some experience on which to base such a judgment about a child or parent, but the Bill extends the right to make parenting contracts and apply for parenting orders to registered social landlords. Those issues are difficult for communities and my concern is that the decision should be made by those with the right expertise, which I am not convinced that the RSLs have got.

Bernard Jenkin: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am perhaps getting carried away with my theme. But having one, two, five or 13 primary care trusts does not demonstrate the fitness of a Government to tackle the real problems in the health service, and the same point applies to the police service.
	What about regional government? My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge) made a very apposite point. It is all very well for the Liberal Democrats to talk about localism and their local credentials, but they support the principle of regional government, or at least they did when—

Boris Johnson: Of course I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on his sterling defence of the Essex police force. However, I wish to draw attention to an opportunity that the Bill gives us to rectify a matter of serious and widespread public concern, which has already been addressed by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) and my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert). That matter is the extradition arrangements that we have with the United States, and what we may expect from America and what they may demand from us.
	I do not wish to indulge in an anti-American polemic, but I wish to suggest a speedy way in which the problem could be rectified in a way that would reassure the Americans that those suspected of serious criminal offences will be speedily yielded up to them—in a way that they would expect from their most important international friend and ally—while at the same time protect the rights of UK nationals. I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have signed my early-day motion on the subject.
	I hope that the Government will agree that the neatest solution would be to insert a line into the Bill—along with the many other amendments to the Extradition Act 2003—to incorporate article 7 of the European convention on extradition, so that any country may refuse extradition if the offence may be deemed to have been committed in whole or in part on its territory. I shall explain why I believe that change to be essential.
	There are currently several cases before the courts that arise directly from the Extradition Act 2003. I know of one of those cases particularly, because it affects one of my constituents, who is one of three bankers who are being electromagnetically sucked—hoovered, even—across the Atlantic without any duty on the Americans to produce any prima facie evidence.
	I have no direct evidence of whether the Americans are right or wrong to say that my constituent has committed the offences, but everybody—including the American authorities—agrees on one point. Insofar as there were any offences, in this case and all other analogous cases, they were committed by UK nationals, in this country and against UK interests. If there was a crime, it was a British crime. We may ask, therefore, why we are exporting our nationals to the US so willingly, when the natural forum for trial is obviously this country and when it is inconceivable that we would willingly export our nationals to any other part 2 country—any other country in category 2.

Boris Johnson: I am indebted to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not think that anything that I have said, or am likely to say, could in any way prejudice the outcome of any trial, but I am grateful for your reminder.
	Why is it inconceivable that any other country could be treated in that way? It is because America, rightly or wrongly, takes a wide view of her jurisdiction and awards herself a great deal of latitude in deciding who to demand and how to treat them when they arrive in America. The Prime Minister himself has said that Guantanamo bay is an anomaly. There are people on both sides of the House who would use stronger language. It is in that context that people in this country need reassurance about our arrangements. What I am proposing, what I hope my Front-Bench colleagues are about to propose and what my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) has already suggested would provide that reassurance. We have set out to bring our extradition arrangements with America into alignment with those of every other European country.
	The Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety does not seem to be attending with the interest that one would hope, but it might be of interest to her to know that in virtually every other European country there is no tradition of extraditing nationals. We do it, and the Irish do it, but they have incorporated article 7 of the European convention on extradition into their extradition law in exactly the way that I have suggested so that if one of their nationals has committed a crime in whole or in part in Ireland, there is no question of extradition.

James Brokenshire: The Bill offers the House the opportunity of a wide-ranging debate on policing. I noted that the Home Secretary emphasised that in his initial comments, when he said that the Bill would have an impact at every level of policing. I share his aspiration of creating safer communities, although I may approach the topic from a different perspective.
	It has been interesting to hear Members' comments during the debate. There is clearly a strong feeling that the intent behind certain aspects of the Bill is to implement the regionalisation agenda. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) spoke about his support of his local police force. My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) dealt with the situation in Essex and whether that county will push for a referendum on the implementation of any changes to the Essex police force. As a Member whose constituency borders Essex—many of my constituents would probably like to be in Essex—I find that an interesting proposal. I and other hon. Members will follow developments in Essex with great interest.
	I shall focus my remarks on three issues arising from the Bill—first, there is the direction of travel and the prospect of centralisation. Although local control may be emphasised, it will not necessarily be implemented through the provisions. Secondly, there is the impact of the creation of the new chief inspector for justice, community safety and custody. Thirdly, there are the missed opportunities in relation to extradition.
	The Bill allows us to debate the role and function of the police. I begin with some comments from Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, in his recent Dimbleby lecture, when he said:
	"We don't want one kind of police force being nice to people and another one arriving in darkened vans wearing the balaclavas. Whoever is responsible for the one has to be responsible for the other."
	That provokes an interesting theoretical debate about the control of the police and where that direction comes from. Some of the emphasis in the Bill seems to take a dual approach, rather than the single approach for which the Metropolitan Police Commissioner called. Centralised control takes the form of the right of intervention by the Home Secretary in the operation of the police, whereas local control is much less defined or thought out and lacks teeth.
	On the powers of intervention, the explanatory notes to the Bill contain the soothing comment that those would be used only as "a last resort". I am not wholly convinced by those words. The approach outlined in the Bill will strengthen the internal culture of direction from the centre, with more limited input and direction from the local bodies intended to reflect the differing needs and aspirations of communities. The Home Secretary was tut-tutting from the Front Bench and the Minister is shaking her head, but when we analyse the Bill in Committee, we will see what the direction of travel is and what protection is afforded to local communities. The Bill appears to give the Home Secretary greater control and greater power.
	Sir Chris Fox, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, said:
	"These measures may lead to more centralised direction at a time when forces are trying to give a local response to local problems."
	The Bill could have strengthened local police authorities by giving them, rather than the Home Secretary, the power to set strategic objectives and to be more relevant to the public by greater accountability, perhaps through election. What we have is very different. Schedule 2 reserves specific powers to the Secretary of State to play a greater role in the composition of individual police authorities and to determine strategic priorities for police in police authority areas. From my reading of the schedule, there is nothing to suggest that different priorities can be set for different police authorities, rather than a straightforward structural approach setting out parameters for all police authorities. The Minister may be able to offer some clarification in her winding-up speech.
	There are significant powers to give directions to chief police officers and to police authorities in much wider circumstances than previously. Although there is a requirement for the Home Secretary to allow an opportunity for police officers and police authorities to make alternative proposals, it seems to be entirely at the discretion of the Home Secretary to ignore those, without even offering the chance for such measures to be implemented to see how they work out.
	I appreciate that the Home Secretary may wish to intervene rapidly in a failing authority, but that circumstance would have been apparent for some time. The swingeing powers that the Home Secretary has reserved to himself to intervene, without the police authority or the chief police officer having an opportunity to offer an alternative proposal, seem to be extremely strong. No doubt we will hear more soothing words this evening about the implementation of that power and how it would be used, but it does not give much protection and allows the Home Office to intervene more readily than in the past. The comments of the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) are germane. If that approach were taken, it would make the Home Secretary responsible for policing throughout the country. Perhaps that is what he wants. We will find out as the Bill proceeds.
	It is interesting to contrast those powers with the backstop, as the Home Secretary called it, or what I might describe as window dressing—the community call for action, which would impose duties on local ward councillors to sort out crime and disorder in the areas that they represent, backed up by a council overview and scrutiny committee that can issue reports to relevant authorities, but without any teeth to ensure that any of the recommendations in its reports are followed up. The process seems highly bureaucratic and less effective than existing arrangements.
	Safer neighbourhood teams are already holding public meetings and fostering a direct relationship with their communities. A direct relationship with a safer neighbourhood team may be more effective than the bureaucratic approach of referring an issue to a ward councillor, and I am looking forward to the regulations specifying how quickly the ward councillor must respond. What additional resources will be made available to ward councillors to process requests? The scrutiny committees will review such matters and make recommendations, which is not the most effective way to ensure that action is taken on the ground quickly, efficiently and effectively to deal with antisocial behaviour in local communities.

Annette Brooke: I apologise for not being present at the beginning of this important debate, although I have contacted the Speaker's office to explain why.
	I share the concerns expressed by hon. Members while I have been in the Chamber about the proposed amalgamation of police forces. I am particularly sad that the federation model has been rejected for Dorset, because it is what people really want.
	I shall comment on the Bill in relation to children and young people, who are often blamed for crime and, in particular, antisocial behaviour. Although young people may be involved in many instances of antisocial behaviour, it is untrue to say that they are always responsible, and I share the concerns expressed by many organisations that we must not demonise young people. Even if we accept that some children and young people cause antisocial behaviour, we must remember that a large number of young people are the victims of antisocial behaviour.
	When we consider the children and young people who may cause antisocial behaviour or crime, we must examine the reasons for their behaviour. I welcome the recognition by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) of the importance of youth services. I have said many times that we started with enforcement and punishment, but that we should have paid much more attention to understanding underlying causes and implementing preventive measures at an earlier stage. I welcome the statement within the respect action plan that we must tackle root causes with the same vigour and determination with which we have taken on antisocial behaviour. It is important to get the right balance between enforcement on antisocial behaviour and tackling the causes of antisocial behaviour.
	Clause 4 includes new proposals on community support officers, and I welcome the increase in the number of CSOs. I have been impressed by the contribution made by the few CSOs whom I have met in my constituency, where we would like our fair share of the proposed sixfold increase. CSOs have walked around and engaged with young people, and their job involves balancing enforcement with part of the role of a youth support worker. It is important that the standard set of powers that they will have should be accompanied by statutory requirements for training. A recent Home Office evaluation of the role of CSOs found that many of them expressed concern about that. If there is to be more training, resources will need to be made available to ensure that CSOs receive adequate and appropriate training on how to work effectively, safely and appropriately with children and young people.
	The Children's Society, on behalf of the Standing Committee for Youth Justice, calls for the proposed training to include an understanding of child protection and the procedures and services that will enable CSOs to act in the best interests of children, instead of taking a straightforward enforcement approach to their situation and behaviour. At a local level, it argues that such training should be consistent with the local safeguarding children's board arrangements and responsibilities for training. Will the Minister therefore ensure that there is full co-operation with her colleague, the Minister for Children and Families, the right hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes)?
	Clause 5 contains a proposal to introduce a new function for CSOs to allow them to remove young people of school age whom they believe to be absent from school without lawful authority—in other words, an extension of sweeping. I have a few concerns about that. The National Foundation for Educational Research concluded that although truancy sweeps had been successful, in terms of the numbers of young people picked up, and had raised awareness of the issue, it was
	"less certain of the long-term impact on individual pupil attendance."
	We need, as always, to get the right balance between enforcement and measures that will encourage children to attend school. Merely sweeping and punishing does not solve the problem. There may be a great need to address family difficulties that are part and parcel of the reason why the child or young person is staying away from school. Perhaps the Department for Education and Skills should be thinking about the curriculum.
	There are many reasons why young people truant. One of my great concerns has been young carers getting caught up in sweeps. Young carers have many reasons for being unable to attend school. Sometimes the calls on them from home are such that they cannot get there. It is a difficult choice for them. There is clearly a need for greater support for this invisible army of young people, an enormous number of whom—up to 100,000—are giving up large portions of their lives and may get caught up in truancy sweeps in the process. Of course, some young people need to be caught and dealt with appropriately, but it should not be a blanket measure—there should be an understanding of the underlying problems.
	Clause 15 places a duty on ward councillors to respond to a call for action from anybody living or working in the area that they represent about a crime and disorder matter in that area. There are concerns that that mechanism could stigmatise young people and alienate them from their communities. For example, it could lead to an extension of the use of naming and shaming by publicly identifying individual children or families. I have spoken out before about my deep concern about naming and shaming in relation to antisocial behaviour orders. That might sometimes work in terms of protecting a community, but ASBOs have been imposed on children with learning difficulties and mental disorders, and it is outrageous to name and shame such children and families. Concern about such behaviour is probably the most frequently raised issue in our surgeries, but we have to tackle it in the right way. It is all too easy for people to say that the problem is down to this family or that family. Calls for action must involve a measured response, possibly involving full consultation within the wider community, and certainly involving children and young people.
	Clauses 16 and 17 cover parenting contracts and orders. When I served on the Committee on the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, I was very cautious about parenting orders. I accept, as I have said publicly before, that they have been successful in some cases. I thought that parents forced to sit in parenting classes would simply fold their arms and refuse to participate, but although that might have happened sometimes, I have heard about great successes. There is a place for these measures, but again we need to look at the wider picture. Ideally, parents should co-operate voluntarily. We need widespread parenting support right across the community as a basic way of life. It should be universal, and not delivered in such a stigmatised fashion.
	Poor parenting undoubtedly contributes to some of the problematic behaviour by children and young people, but it is not the only cause. Some children might misbehave in the community as a way of crying out about what is happening in the home. Perhaps they are being abused or there are problems with their parents. Children's organisations suggest that social services should carry out an assessment of need under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. The Government could be more receptive to such suggestions. We have had the tough side—let us look at some of the difficult cases in which the behaviour of children and young people has tragic causes.
	Finally, I should like to comment on a very sad outcome of the Home Office's legislation. The United Kingdom locks up more children than most other industrialised countries. In 2004, in England, 4,461 children aged 15 and under were detained in custody. The total number of under-18s detained was about 10,000—enough to fill 10 secondary schools. The recently published Carlile inquiry report clearly shows the damage done to children in custodial settings. Restraint that involves the deliberate infliction of violence is used systematically in penal custody. In her annual report, published in January 2005, the chief inspector of prisons raised serious concerns about the use of physical force on children in prison. Twenty-nine children have died in custody since 1990, 28 of whom hanged themselves. One 15-year-old died after being restrained by three staff at a privately run secure training centre. Nine of those 29 children were on remand.
	Children in penal custody are known to be among the most disadvantaged in our society. More than a quarter have the literacy and numeracy of an average seven year old. Eighty-five per cent. show signs of a personality disorder. More than half have been in care or involved with social services, and most have been excluded from school. The Commission for Racial Equality has shown that black children are twice as likely to end up in prison as at university. In 2004, 3,337 children who were assessed as vulnerable were nevertheless sent to young offender institutions.
	Yes, we are being asked to tackle antisocial behaviour and crime and there is a need to do that. However, I make my final appeal: we must deal with the problem of all those children who are locked up in what appear to be very unsatisfactory conditions.

Andrew MacKinlay: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is correct. Without hesitation, I am happy to endorse the view that he has expressed to the House on the need for some settlement to enable our commanders to build up a relationship with the community—the formal representational community of local authorities as well as community leaders—and to undertake familiarisation. There is often far too frequent a turnover, or a revolving door, in appointments of key personnel.
	I want to move on from the question of mergers, although I should express some caution about the proposal to merge the inspectorates. I would have thought that the inspectorate of constabulary should be maintained. I see great dangers in bringing those inspectorates together, as compelling as the arguments might be, although no doubt they are driven by the need to reduce costs. Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary is highly regarded and I see no compelling case for it to be merged with any other inspectorate, no matter how important. Indeed, those inspectorates are important, but that is an argument for them to be stand-alone too.
	I want to discuss the question of the powers of the various police officers and police forces and community support officers. I am not being sarcastic when I say that I welcome the Conservative party's change in attitude towards CSOs. They are one of the Government's great successes and the Conservatives should be generous enough to acknowledge that. CSOs were introduced with a great deal of criticism, but now each of those officers is highly valued in our community and we need more of them.
	My view, however, is that CSOs should be given constable powers. That is where successive Home Secretaries have been too nervous or have been given the wrong counsel by people in the Home Office. Hon. Members have already said that we can get some good, highly-qualified people who can exercise good judgment—they are selected for that. These are not people who are just taken from the jobcentre; they are selected people of good quality.
	Often, such officers would hitherto—a decade or more ago—have been admitted to the police force as police officers. They should be sworn in as constables and, although their powers could be limited by statute, they should have the capacity to arrest over and above that power which every citizen has. That would strengthen their status, especially as, under the Bill, the area in which they can exercise their remit will extend nationwide if they are loaned to other police authorities. Currently, their powers are limited to the constabulary for which they work.
	When the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was Home Secretary and subsequently, I argued that the office of constable should be of a minimum standard laid down by statute. Many people are sworn as constables and they do a good job. I want to refer to them. There are parks police in Wandsworth and in Greenwich. Also, there are constables in some ports, but not in others. I shall return to that in a moment.
	We also have some big non-Home Office forces, such as the Ministry of Defence police, British Transport police and the constabulary that looks after the UK Atomic Energy Authority's establishments. There is a variance as to their powers, which also applies to training. There should be some constancy—a minimum so that a constable, whoever he or she serves, has had basic training. That should be extended to CSOs. It would be very enhancing indeed.
	I have produced private Member's Bills and have tried to interest those successive Home Secretaries in the need, in extremis, for all constables to have power to act. The Royal Parks police, which is a highly skilled force, has no more jurisdiction than you or I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to arrest a person outside the curtilage of the royal parks. That is bonkers. Also, a ports policeman cannot use his discretion as a constable outside the curtilage of the port. That is madness—a waste.
	There should be a constant standard and a policeman should have the duty to act as a policeman in extremis or in support of another police officer wherever appropriate. I would have thought this a good legislative opportunity for making such an amendment. British Transport police officers have had their powers marginally shifted in the last few years, but even officers of the MOD police, some of whom can be seen wearing policemen's uniform and wearing the traditional policeman's hat, have limited powers outside the curtilage or immediate vicinity of MOD establishments. That is ridiculous. This is an opportunity to extend, in extremis, the powers of all police officers and CSOs to act as constables and in support of any other police officer when necessary.
	Special constables, who are not paid but greatly valued, are sworn as constables, in contrast with CSOs, who are full-time but not sworn. We have some good part-timers—unpaid volunteers—but they have the status of constable, which underlines the fact that it is illogical that CSOs cannot be constables.
	I notice that, sensibly, special constables will now be able to carry out their functions in any part of England where they are on loan to another chief constable, but that makes it nonsensical to deprive people who are ports, parks or MOD police of that capacity. There should be a general review of the extent of the powers of all police officers.
	The Bill does not cover the costs of policing our airports, but extensive reference is made to the powers of the police in what are referred to as aerodromes. That needs to be looked at expeditiously by the Home Office, because the existing arrangements are ludicrous and unfair to the council tax payer. For instance, BAA has to pay for the policing of Stansted airport, basically on the demand of Essex police authority—I think that is the correct course. Broadly, the system is that the chief constable of Essex can say, with the support of his authority, that he requires certain policing at Stansted, although there is an appeals and disputes procedure—while close by in Luton there is no such payment by the airport. The council tax payer in Bedfordshire meets the full cost of policing there. There should be parity of treatment, for a number of reasons. There should be fairness to the council tax payer and fair competition; there should also be a proper standard of policing in all our airports, commensurate with the size of the airports and the number of customers using them. Surely the Bill could have made such provision, for those reasons and also in the interests of the Home Office.
	Clause 8 extends the power of the police to search at aerodromes. I do not understand why it does not include seaports. Since 1992, I have drawn attention to the inadequate policing at many of our seaports, large and small. When the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe—who led the Conservative party at the last general election—was Home Secretary, I proposed the establishment of a ports police force. He dismissed the idea. At the last election, the proposal became Conservative policy. Regrettably, because of the way in which politics works in this country, my colleagues in the Labour party opposed it because it had been proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. That is the kind of nonsense that happens in the United Kingdom. I think that it would be very sensible to establish ports and border police at our seaports; indeed, I consider it reckless not to make such provision.
	My constituency shares an extensive river frontage. We have the port of Tilbury, which does have a dedicated police force. I am very proud of that, and so, rightly, are those who work at the port. The force is small and has no critical mass, but at least it is there, and its presence greatly reduces the likelihood of organised crime such as people-smuggling. Regrettably, the force was privatised under the last Conservative Administration, but it is staffed by dedicated police officers.
	On other parts of the river frontage, there are no police officers. Boats arrive from the continent two or three times a day, and there is no Home Office immigration, no Customs and Excise and no police officer. Do you think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that those involved in organised crime do not know that? I have told successive Home Secretaries about it. They have massaged me, as it were, by allowing me to talk to the Home Office police adviser, and a delightful man he was too, but that will not stop organised crime in and through our seaports.
	Successive Home Secretaries have plugged holes at Sangatte and other places, but they have not addressed the real problem. People enter the United Kingdom via a number of seaports, especially on the east coast, because there is no police force there. We need a dedicated, highly mobile force. They cannot be at every wharf or port all the time, but the mere fact that they could be there quickly and carry out operations would enable us to combat illegal immigration, people-smuggling and other crimes perpetrated by those who go in and out of our ports with containers.
	I have just returned from the United States. The question of the Dubai ports was a big issue, and I was amazed that it had not been a bigger issue here. I do not want to go into the details of a debate that amounts to a scrap between Republicans and Democrats, but the United States Administration are likely to extract a price from the Dubai ports for their acquisition of P&O to proceed. They will probably pay for increased screening of containers.
	I think that only about 3 per cent. of our containers are screened at our seaports. If the Dubai ports, or any other part of the port industry in north America, has to pay more for new screening technologies, that should be good for us in the United Kingdom and western Europe too. I think that there is a powerful case for seaport security and policing to be paid for by the user, per container. A small payment on each container would help to fund a dedicated ports police in this country. What happens in the United States is not our business, but if its ports industry is to pay more for technologies to combat crime, surely we are justified in saying that we should benefit from such resources too.
	Clause 9 provides for additional police powers to collect information relating to flights and voyages. I support that, because I do not dismiss the gravity of the war against terrorism. I always felt that terrorism posed a serious threat, even before 11 September, and my view has not changed. That is why I feel so strongly about our seaports, and have detained the House on the issue. Nevertheless, collecting all that information on what the Bill describes as "flights and voyages" will not be much use without law enforcement officers—police—at our ports, who are able to reach the various wharves that surround the United Kingdom, particularly those on the east coast.
	The Bill also confers additional powers on trading standards authorities. I imagine that the aim is to combat such offences as counterfeiting and breach of copyright, which is most necessary. Local authorities will have to use those powers. All too often, local authorities do not exercise their existing powers, because there are not enough trading standards officers to enforce them. I hope that the Bill will enable us to will the means, and persuade local authorities that trading standards are a high priority in the combating of crime, and organised crime in particular. Illegally copied compact discs on our market stalls frequently represent the end of a major criminal operation across the country.
	Clause 38 extends the police complaints machinery to those who enforce asylum and immigration policies. I consider it very necessary. I have been very distressed by raids by immigration and asylum organisations and the Home Office on families asleep in their beds at 6 am on Sundays. Families do not run. Single men who are economic migrants, are by definition transient. In many instances, it is difficult for the asylum and immigration services to arrest them.
	I regret to say that we are in the numbers game. When the Home Office knows that a family is involved, its personnel will move in at 6 o'clock on a Sunday morning and round up the lot. I find that extremely distasteful, and I believe that the police officers who are in attendance find it distasteful as well. It is one of the most harrowing and unjustified situations that can be created. However, when successive politicians stand at the Dispatch Box and argue about figures, rounding up a family of seven or nine on a Sunday morning looks good in terms of headline figures. The people concerned were all together. There is no necessity for such action. I believe that, regrettably, there have been grounds for considerable complaint and investigation, and I am glad that there will now be more opportunities for people to complain and to seek reviews of what has happened.
	Members have mentioned the extradition provision. I am amazed that, although the United Kingdom has entered into a treaty with the United States of America and we are acting on it in good faith, the United States Senate has not endorsed it. I cannot understand why we tolerate that. It is a two-way process. Our bargaining chip is saying to Uncle Sam "You can have this facility, provided that you do right by us." When I was in the United States last week, I expressed bewilderment that the Senate had not passed the treaty. I was given a variety of reasons, one of which was that it feared that people who had left Northern Ireland might be affected.
	I would not have thought, with all the legislation that we are passing now, that that was a problem, to be candid, but I think that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary could say, "This treaty is available. The Queen has signed it. The UK has fulfilled its side of the bargain, but the treaty cannot be triggered until your legislature delivers its side of the bargain too." It is absurd. I ask the Minister to explain the logic of that. I do not say that sarcastically. I simply do not understand why we are acting in that way when the United States legislature, the Senate, is failing to implement the treaty.
	The treaty has been in existence not for months but for years. I urge the Minister to reflect on that matter. Otherwise, there is a powerful case for the Bill to be used as a vehicle for amending the treaty or suspending it. I do not talk about individual cases. I have no brief. I want wrongdoers to be brought to justice as expeditiously as possible either side of the Atlantic, but there has to be parity of treatment.
	For those reasons, it is useful for Parliament to explore the Bill. It contains a variety of measures, some of which are most welcome, and some of which we should treat with caution and perhaps amend during the legislative process. Above all, I hope that the Minister will reflect on the fact that the Bill is a wonderful opportunity to beef up the powers of community support officers and constables, whether they are in Home Office forces or the other forces to which I have referred. It is also a wonderful opportunity to think again about having a highly mobile, technical border or ports police, paid for by the ports industry, and to ensure that funding for policing our airports is appropriate, fair and balanced in terms of competition and the charge that should be forced on the council tax payer.

Mark Francois: I am delighted to be the fourth Essex Member of Parliament to be called to speak in the debate, following very good speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and for Harwich (Mr. Carswell), and by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). It is a particular pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman, as he eloquently expressed his reservations about the proposed mergers in Essex, and was physical testament to the cross-party campaign that we have conducted in our county against those proposals, about which we feel strongly and to which I shall return.
	I commend the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who spoke powerfully and with some passion from the Front Bench. He deconstructed the problems in the Bill, not least in highlighting its centralising tendency, which I deprecate but which I fear I cannot explain as eloquently as he did.
	Neighbourhood policing is a theme that, as the Government have stressed, runs throughout the Bill. That is fine in concept, but I have a couple of practical questions to ask about it. I will take an example from my constituency. We would all like to see more police, but in a particular area in my constituency, Hull Bridge, which is by the River Crouch, people have felt for some time that there has been a dearth of policing and, in particular, of regular patrols by regular officers. That has come through to me in my constituency postbag and, of course these days, also by e-mail, and while I have been out canvassing in Hull Bridge. It cropped up on the doorsteps so often that it was impossible as an MP to ignore the strength of feeling.
	As a result, last summer I organised a petition to encourage local residents in Hull Bridge to express their concern and to call for a regular policing team to be allocated to the area. That, I understand, is similar in concept to neighbourhood policing.
	I presented that petition of some 1,300 signatures to the House on the day we rose for the summer recess last year. I am now actively pursuing the issue with the new divisional commander who covers the area. I wrote to him about it only last week. I hope that, if neighbourhood policing is to mean something in practice, we will see local police commanders doing their best, within the constraints they face, to respond actively to local residents' strong requests for more cover. I hope that the petition will produce a definitive result.
	That leads me to a related point, which I raised in an intervention on the hon. Member for Thurrock, with which I think he had some sympathy and with which I hope the Minister will sympathise, too. It is about continuity in police command appointments.In the past few years, I have seen quite a high turnover in basic command unit appointments. As I understand it, in a number of BCUs, there will now effectively be a two-tier structure—the divisional commander, who will normally be a chief superintendent, and below that a district commander. If, for example, the division covers a number of local authority areas, the district commander will be coterminous, say, with the district or borough council boundary. That is certainly the intention in one of the divisions in my constituency. Therefore, we will have both a divisional commander and a district commander.
	I know who the new divisional commander of one of my divisions will be, but I do not yet know who the new district commander will be. I am keen to find out. My local police have explained to me that the appointment will be made shortly and I accept that explanation, but if those people are to become well known as figureheads in their community, so that people such as MPs can make representations to them, it is important that there is some continuity in appointments and that we do not see the relatively highly turnover in senior posts that we have perhaps seen in recent years. I hope that that is a perfectly reasonable and entirely non-partisan point. I offer it to the Minister and hope that some progress will be made.
	Extradition has been raised by a number of hon. Members, not least in what was a powerful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), who put his points across with his characteristic personality. An important point of principle is involved. When these powers were debated in the House not so long ago, Ministers argued that an extradition agreement of such power was necessary to fight international terrorism. That is why the House was asked to approve that measure. That is fine as far as it goes. We can look any other nation in the eye and say that we have stood shoulder to shoulder with our ally the United States in fighting the curse of international terror. There is nothing for which we should apologise to anyone. The problem, I understand, is that the United States authorities have begun to try to use that agreement in ways that clearly go beyond combating international terror.
	I will not stray into matters that are sub judice and raise individual cases. I understand the rules, but I am given to understand that there have been a number of occasions in the past year when the US Internal Revenue Service has attempted to use the treaty to extradite people to the United States to answer charges that they have not paid sufficient tax dollars to the United States Government. I can understand why the IRS might want to try to do that, but that is not the reason that the agreement was made. It is certainly not what Parliament was told when it was asked to approve that powerful measure. As other hon. Members have said, the United States, to add insult to injury, has not ratified the agreement at their end by passing it through the Senate.
	There are likely to be other occasions in the near future when the Government come to the House to ask for special powers to fight terrorism. Indeed, they did so recently when they asked for the power to detain people for 90 days. The House was not convinced of the Government's overall argument and therefore they suffered a defeat.
	If the Government come to this legislature to ask for powers that restrict individual liberty in order to fight terrorism, they have a strong moral obligation to ensure that, if the House grants those powers, they are used only for the purpose for which they were requested. The danger is that, if such a situation gets worse, when the Government, whatever their colour, come to the House, perhaps in an emergency, and ask for such a strong power, the House may be reluctant to grant it. That example may be cited.
	I make a genuine plea to the Minister: this is an anomalous situation and it must be cleared up. Otherwise, there is a danger that, in future, the Government, whatever their colour, will be accused of crying wolf. I hope that that is not an unreasonable point and that the anomaly can be cleared up. The point has been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House and I hope that she will take it genuinely on board.
	I now want to discuss police authority and police force mergers. The Association of Police Authorities' briefing for this Bill says:
	"This Bill deals with proposed reforms to policing which are in addition to the merger of police forces that is currently also being considered, although to some extent the Bill anticipates elements of police restructuring."
	I am pleased that the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety is at the Dispatch Box to hear me raise this issue, because I must emphasise to her in all sincerity that there are genuinely strong feelings in my county on it. If she did not believe that before this evening, I hope that the representations that she has heard tonight from four Essex MPs leave her in absolutely no doubt. Indeed, other MPs from our county have spoken on this issue in other debates, as well.
	Telephone and internet polls conducted by local newspapers show overwhelming support for the view that the Essex force should stand alone. Phone-ins to Essex radio stations have produced a similar result. There is very little support at all among the general public for the Government's proposed mergers, which is not very surprising. We in Essex have a strong sense of identity, as the Minister doubtless realises, and we do not want our policing to be performed remotely by a chief constable based in Cambridge or—dare I say it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with you in the Chair?—even in Ipswich. We want our chief constable to be based in Chelmsford, where that person can best understand the needs, security and policing of our county.
	We do not want the council tax to go up, because the policing precept would have to rise. Currently, we in Essex have one of the lowest precepts in East Anglia at £105 a year for band D properties. Norfolk's precept is £145, so under equalisation our precept would undoubtedly have to rise. It is fair to say that Essex council tax payers pay enough as it is, so there is absolutely no enthusiasm for this idea on financial grounds.

Edward Garnier: I want to begin with an apology. Like a number of Members who have spoken in today's debate, I was not here at the outset to hear the Home Secretary introduce Second Reading. My excuse is that I was obeying the law. Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003—or, at least, those of its provisions that repeal the Juries Act 1974—my exemption, as a Member of Parliament, from jury service was abolished. Until the passing of the 2003 Act, I was exempt from such service because of my membership of this House, because I am a member of the Bar, and because I am a judge. All three exemptions have gone and I was required to appear at the Old Bailey at 9 o'clock this morning to surrender to jury service.
	I had no particular objection to doing that; however, I have had a frustrating day. Needless to say, on the first occasion that I was called to take part in a trial, I knew the judge and several members of the Bar. Furthermore, the case involved the trial of some prison officers—and given that I am shadow Minister with responsibility for Opposition policy on prisons and prison officers, it was thought perhaps inadvisable for me to take part in that trial. However, after lunch I was given the opportunity of another go. That trial, like the first, was projected to last for several months—well beyond the two weeks for which I had been summoned. Eighty of us were put into the jury-in-waiting, of whom 20 were selected to stand by for next Wednesday and participation in the jury. Needless to say, I was disqualified again because I knew the judge—indeed, I had lunch with him about four weeks ago—and a member of the Bar. All in all, it was a deeply frustrating day—because it meant that I was unable to enjoy the Home Secretary's speech this afternoon. I apologise, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to him and to the rest of the House, but I see that I am not the only Member who missed the opening speeches. I am at least here for the closing speeches. There is a category of Member that has missed the opening speeches and the closing speeches, although if they hurry they may catch the Minister of State's response to the debate. I look forward to welcoming those Labour Members who have not found it convenient to be detained here.
	The Bill is something of a curate's egg, which is hardly surprising as it is 139 pages long. It is yet another doorstop or telephone directory of a Bill. They come out of the Home Office at regular intervals and huge acreages of Norwegian or south American forests are destroyed to produce the paper for them. There are far too many Home Office Bills and while they are not wholly imperfect, they are—as so many hon. Members have demonstrated today—riddled with imperfections that require close examination in Committee. However, this Bill will not receive the necessary close examination in Committee because it will be guillotined. All sorts of good amendments and criticisms will not be discussed as a result. We will have to rely on the other place to do our work for us. That is the end of the sermon.
	The Bill can be divided into three themes—police centralisation, extradition and amalgamation of police and court functions. At least, those are the themes that have emerged from the debate today. It is uncontroversial to claim that of the 18 Members of Parliament, including the Home Secretary and the Chairman of the Select Committee, who have spoken in the debate, support for the Bill has been qualified—except from the Home Secretary. Even the absent Labour Back Benchers who read out the Whips' notes were not entirely enthusiastic about the contents of the Bill. I look forward to hearing the Minister of State's enthusiastic endorsement of whatever it was that the Home Secretary said this afternoon, but the rest of us have serious concerns about the creeping centralisation of control over the police, of which this Bill is another example.
	The Government say that their powers under the Bill to exercise authority over particular police authorities—they will have an easier task when there are only 12 instead of 43—will be used only as a last resort. However, we need to place that claim in the context of the project to amalgamate police forces. I appreciate that the Bill is not about amalgamation of police forces, which will be achieved by executive decree by the Home Secretary. We have already had a written parliamentary statement from him last Friday, when a sparsely attended House was presented, at a late hour, with some proposals for the amalgamation of a certain number of police forces. I doubt whether we shall ever have an opportunity again to deal with the issue in a proper parliamentary way. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) pointed out in a telling speech, that so-called promise—undertaking might be a better word—not to use the powers except in exceptional circumstances is absent from the Bill. I have learned through bitter experience since 1997, when the Government came into office, that unless a promise is made at the Dispatch Box by a Minister and is recorded in Hansard, or is made in some other official written way, it is unlikely to be kept. So when the Government say that the powers will be used only as a last resort, I see that more as a threat than as a benign indication of intent.
	The Bill is the pathfinder for the regionalisation of police forces, and my hon. Friends the Members for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone), for Hornchurch, for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) and, of course, for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) made that very point. It is such an obvious point that it pains me that we have to keep on making it, but the Government still seem not to have taken it on board. The essential connection between the police and the policed is being loosened.
	There are more and more indications from the Government that they wish to pull in to Whitehall, disguised as strategic policy making, control over operations. Chief constables will have to follow the Home Secretary's directions or risk their jobs. I am not sure that the British public think that that is a proper way to proceed. We should always beware Government claims that the national policing improvement agency will
	"assist police forces to deliver . . . national . . . priorities"
	and
	"support national implementation of the Home Secretary's key priorities for the police, as set out in the annual National Community Safety Plan".
	Such offers of help from this Government, with their history, should be viewed with great scepticism, and I trust that in Committee hon. Members on both sides of the House will follow the example of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). I hope that he is a member of the Committee, although I doubt that the Government will be brave enough to appoint him. He demonstrates every time he rises to his feet that the duty of a Member of Parliament, whether it be on the Floor of the House or in Committee, and after acknowledging the political party to which he or she belongs and that most of us were elected as members of a particular party rather than—as the fiction has it—as individuals, is to hold the Government to account. If we do not do that, we might as well pack it in and not bother. I do not need to look far across the Chamber to find many hon. Members who seem to have given up on that duty.
	If crime and disorder reduction partnerships are so good and need to work with the basic command units, why will we see a reduction in their number? That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs and echoed by many others. Statutory basic command units and direct control by the Home Secretary seem to march hand in hand, and it is not a particularly controversial prediction to suggest that before long the Home Secretary and his Ministers will have their sticky little fingers all over the day-to-day detailed work of the police throughout the country. Power is being drawn into Whitehall—other Members have used more colourful language—and as it goes, so too does real public accountability, a point well made by my hon. Friends the Members for North Essex, for Arundel and South Downs and for Bexleyheath and Crayford and, by implication, if not expressly, by many others.
	The second matter covered in the debate was extradition. The Bill is not directly to do with the UK's arrangements with the United States, but the treaty has been much discussed and it is of genuine and proper concern among the public and my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson). It seems to me that the purpose of all extradition treaties is to ensure that those who commit crimes, or who are suspected of committing crimes, in other jurisdictions cannot escape justice by going to another country. We do not extradite suspects to face the death penalty or torture, which is why we have memorandums of understanding with countries such as Libya, Syria, Jordan and Tunisia. Some of those memorandums have been implemented and some have not, but the mere fact that we need them suggests that the Government realise that extradition law and the need to protect our citizens from unjust extradition law—indeed, to protect any citizen, whether a UK national or not, from unjust extradition—is extremely important.
	There is a real sense of the injustice and lack of fairness in our current arrangements with the United States and although we cannot deal with them tonight, nor can we amend treaties by legislation, there should be ample room for proper, full, calm and considered discussion of the United States extradition arrangements in Committee and I trust that time will be provided for that purpose. It is not right for other jurisdictions to trawl in our jurisdiction with a finer net than we can use in theirs. If the principle of comity of nations is to mean anything, we need to revisit our treaty with the United States.
	The third theme of the debate was the amalgamation of police and court functions. The separation of powers should be not merely recognised as an important part of our constitution, but entrenched in legislation, especially when the conventions that uphold that separation in our largely unwritten constitution are being shown less respect by the Government day by day. For example, the issuing of penalty tickets by weights and measures inspectors may on the face of it seem a perfectly sensible administrative step, but the inspectors are being given the power to exercise those punitive powers by a police officer, not by the courts. The power of police officers to impose penalties under conditional bail arrangements should also be looked into in the context of a proper separation of powers. If we allow such things to be ignored as matters of tedious hindrance to a Bill that is at least partly meritorious, we let ourselves down, and we certainly let our constituents down.
	I was unable to be in the Chamber to hear some of the speeches, including that of the Chairman of the Select Committee, and I heard only the tail end of the speech of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone). However, I do none of the speeches an injustice, nor do I paraphrase them unfaithfully, when I say that everyone, apart from the Home Secretary and, I dare say, the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety—[Interruption.] I never anticipate what the right hon. Lady is about to say. I do not need to; she repeats herself with great frequency on every occasion—none the less, it is always a delight to listen to her.
	The three themes that I have identified are matters of concern and even though we shall not force a Division—nor, I dare say, will the Liberal Democrats—the Government cannot allow our decision to let the Bill achieve Second Reading undermine the sincere and proper criticisms that have been made on both sides of the House in cross-party fashion.
	I want to finish by reminding ourselves of what the hon. Member for Thurrock had to say about police powers and mergers. He is concerned that we tend to reorganise when we do not know the answer to a problem. That problem was identified not by him, but by thinkers during the early centuries of the Roman empire.

Hazel Blears: I understand the concerns of the Association of Police Authorities about putting the membership of police authorities into secondary legislation. I can give the assurance again from the Dispatch Box, as I have given it personally, that putting the requirements into regulations in secondary legislation is simply a way of making sure that we do not have to have primary legislation every time that we need a change. Given the provisions relating to health or to education, the provisions for membership are in secondary legislation. We are seeking to ensure that membership of police authorities can be flexible so that we do not have one rigid formula. Some police authorities will need to be larger than others to ensure democracy so that members of each authority can be represented on the new strategic authority.
	I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) broadly welcomed the Bill's provisions. He talked about seeking to get the balance right between driving performance, which has been absolutely key, and maintaining independence. My right hon. Friend has asked us to consider intervention powers carefully, and try to ensure that they are tailored to deal with the situations that might arise. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred to a backstop and a last resort. We do not want to be coming to the Dispatch Box whenever there is an issue involving local police forces. The powers need to be flexible enough to enable us to respond to situations that might arise as a result of a public inquiry, not simply a report from the inspectorate.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen welcomed the idea of the national policing improvement agency, and asked us to ensure that there will be provision for embedding good professional practice, such as professionalising investigation projects and the work that has been done by the National Centre for Policing Excellence. I can give my right hon. Friend that reassurance. The first three mission-critical priorities of the improvement agency will be first, embedding neighbourhood policing; secondly, responding to demands to share information, as recommended by the Bichard inquiry; and thirdly, trying to ensure that all our forces throughout the country have better provision to respond to level 2 crime—serious and organised crime. That is one of the major factors behind the restructuring process that is taking place.
	My right hon. Friend also raised concerns about conditional cautions. I hope that I can give him some reassurance that it will be for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether a conditional caution is suitable and to identify the appropriate conditions. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) raised the issue as well. There is also the question of whether the police might take the lead in identifying cases that they think would be suitable for a conditional caution. It will be for the CPS to consider the conditions. There will be a separation between the arresting officer and the person who decides on the make-up of that caution, whether it is punitive or one of reparation. That is probably the right balance.
	I can also give the reassurance that the process is not designed to deal with serious and violent offenders. It is very much about first-time offenders, and particularly young people. I hope that if we can get the system to work quickly, someone committing criminal damage, for example, on a Wednesday, and admitting their guilt would be given an additional caution, and could soon be out in the local park, perhaps, making reparation. I hope that there can be a quick connection between the offence being committed and punishment. That is particularly effective when dealing with young people.
	Concerns have been raised about parenting orders and ensuring that registered social landlords and local authorities are sufficiently trained and have the necessary expertise. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) raised some similar issues, as did Liberal Democrats. There will be safeguards in place and we will issue statutory guidance. Many registered social landlords are now working in partnership with social services and education authorities as part of a multi-agency team to tackle antisocial behaviour, and we will ensure that they continue to operate in that way.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) made a telling intervention highlighting the right of the community to set priorities for local action and to ensure that both the police and local authorities are called to account to tackle those matters. That is an illustration of the fact that the Bill is about devolution rather than centralisation.

Hazel Blears: May I try to make progress in dealing with hon. Members' contributions? Otherwise we will all be here until 10 pm.
	The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) supported some parts of the Bill, but was concerned about the community call for action. I hope that she is reassured that it aims to make councils, particularly Liberal Democrat ones, take action on certain issues. I was disappointed that she did not offer any positive proposals to try to address those issues, but in Committee she may provide more details. She also expressed concern about parenting orders, but I have dealt with the question of registered social landlords.
	I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend welcomed the coterminosity between basic command units and local authorities, which is important in tackling antisocial behaviour. I urge all hon. Members not to forget that more half of all antisocial behaviour orders are served on adults, so it is not simply young people who are involved in antisocial behaviour. Time and time again, I say that 95 per cent. of our young people are good and decent individuals who contribute to their communities and do a fantastic job. We are talking about a small minority, many of whom are adults, who simply do not abide by the rules.
	My hon. Friend raised the important issue of facilities for young people, as did several Opposition Members. The first chapter of the respect action plan talks about unlocking the positive potential of our young people. The plan highlights a significant investment by the Department for Education and Skills in youth facilities. About £0.5 million for the average local authority was announced in the Chancellor's pre-Budget report, particularly so that young people themselves can be involved in shaping and designing facilities, whether an internet café or a skateboard park.
	Even more significantly, £100 million of public funding will be used to back the Russell commission's proposals to enable 1 million extra young people to become involved in a range of exciting volunteering opportunities. There will be short-term and long-term opportunities. Some will be full-time and others part-time, and they will give young people a chance to do the things that, in some cases, only better-off young people have had the opportunity to do. Youngsters from disadvantaged communities will have the chance to undertake if not a gap year, a gap three months or a gap six months, which will help to widen their horizons. There will therefore be a huge amount of extra help in the respect plan to give young people more places to go and better things to do. We want to make sure that we involve people in more constructive activities to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour on our streets. I hope that my hon. Friend is encouraged by those proposals, but we need to make sure that Conservative local authorities take them seriously and involve young people in drawing up those proposals.
	The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) was off the mark when he said that the Bill was about centralisation and talked about the powers of intervention. A few years ago in the police service there was not even a framework for performance. Police forces will admit that over the past few years there has been a huge transformation, with the introduction of the policing performance assessment framework, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman's local force will tell him about. If he thinks that localism means hands off and a free-for-all, and allowing high crime areas not to improve as fast as low crime areas, he is not doing his constituents a service.
	Localism or devolution is possible, but it must be balanced by proper standards. Among the police forces that the police standards unit have engaged with, in underperforming forces crime has fallen at twice the rate that it has in forces with which the unit has not engaged. That shows that intervention can work to drive up performance and reduce crime. Without such intervention we would not have seen the massive falls in burglary, vehicle crime and robbery over the past few years, for which all our constituents are grateful. The hon. Gentleman must get the balance right between giving people autonomy and allowing a free-for-all which leads to a postcode lottery in crime.
	I am so disappointed that the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) is not in his place now. He has come and he has gone. Perhaps that will be his epitaph. He made an amusing reference to his constituent having been hoovered across the Atlantic—I am not sure whether he was referring to J. Edgar in those terms. He raised concerns about the Extradition Act 2003, and serious concerns have been expressed by several hon. Members about extradition.
	Clearly, the Bill does not deal with the different evidential tests in the UK and in the United States of America, but I acknowledge the concern about the failure of the US to endorse the treaty. I can assure hon. Members that we are constantly pressing for the matter to be properly considered. I am sure it will be raised in Committee and that Members will want to make their points. The difference between the tests—that is, in terms of probable cause or information—is a product of the US Bill of Rights, which clearly cannot be amended. We have probably got the best balance that we can get in the treaty, but I understand hon. Members' genuine concerns about making sure that it is endorsed, and we will continue to press for that.
	I am delighted that the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) wants to help to build a culture of respect in the community. I am sure that he will support his police and local authority in doing that. He also supports community support officers. I can tell him that there will be 18,000 more CSOs over the next couple of years, in addition to the present 6,000 officers, and the community call for action will be a practical power to make sure that a light is shone on problems that may have persisted for months if not years, so that we can get things done. If neighbourhood policing works as we want it to, there will be less and less need to use the community call for action, because local people will genuinely be involved in getting things done.
	In an excellent contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Mrs. Hodgson) welcomed the powers for CSOs, especially in connection with truancy. She knows that children who are not in school are far more likely to be involved in crime and antisocial behaviour. She also raised issues concerning the ability of police officers to monitor football banning orders and to have access to people travelling to football matches.
	I undertake to consider my hon. Friend's proposals extremely carefully. I have no doubt that they will be raised in Committee. She made some telling points, which I know were well informed by her local Police Federation representative, with whom she is in close touch. She also supported the proposals for the extra search powers at airports, and I am grateful for that. As usual, she is practical and in touch with her community, and makes an excellent contribution.
	The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard)—

James Brokenshire: It is difficult to judge. The Under-Secretary may be the best person to respond to that point, but there was a sense at the time that more traditional things were out of fashion. It is possible that the royal tournament was caught in the attempt to go for a more modern approach. Indeed, the statements by the then Defence Secretary emphasised that sense of modernity, even though I have to say that there was a need to review the role and structure of the royal tournament to reflect changes within the armed forces and the more modern service that we now have. There was certainly a good opportunity for a review.
	Although one can debate the merits of the argument, Lord Robertson certainly appreciated the need to retain a high-profile national event to showcase the tremendous work of our armed forces. On the basis of those comments, I wondered why I could not recall reading or hearing about what sounds like a significant high-profile event that was intended to follow on year after year. I therefore asked a written question on how many times the royal tournament had been replaced by a military tattoo at Horse Guards parade in London, as Lord Robertson's comments had suggested would be the case. The Minister replied:
	"Following the last Royal Tournament in 1999 it has been replaced once by a military tattoo at Horse Guards Parade. The Department continues, however, to participate in a wide variety of smaller events such as Open Days, ships visits, County Shows and showcase events such as the Edinburgh Military Tattoo and the Fairford Royal International Air Tattoo".—[Official Report, 20 December 2005; Vol. 440, c. 2763W.]
	Despite Lord Robertson's initial statements that there would be a military tattoo in London each summer, the much-vaunted replacement was, in fact, only a one-off.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to explain in his response what changed. Lord Robertson clearly recognised that the royal tournament was a significant and important event to showcase the work of our essential modern military forces. As we have heard, he described it as
	"the shop window of Britain's military mission".
	With significant overseas commitments and increasing financial constraints on our armed forces, if it is now simply impossible to organise such a large-scale event on an annual basis, perhaps we could understand the decision-making process that has taken place. However, I am not aware—I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that any such formal explanation has been given. If that is not the reason, why has Lord Robertson's commitment not been followed through?
	Against that backdrop, it is hardly surprising that one of my constituents, Mr. Steve Thomas of Bruce avenue, Hornchurch, wrote to me in the following terms:
	"Do you remember the Royal Tournament, which was held at Earls Court every year and which was chopped by the Government in 1999? You probably saw it as a kid. I went to it many times over the years from age 10. It was always a great night out and we all got to meet our armed forces in person. I believe it was also very effective in gaining future recruits to the service. It was a tragedy when it was so brutally ended after 119 years. Yes 119 years of history means nothing to this present government. At the time it was claimed that it was costing too much and that it was far too patriotic . . . what nonsense. It was a very popular show right up to the end. We need to restore some pride in our country and there's no better way than to have an annual display of 'skill of arms' held in London as it was for 119 years."
	I am sure that that sentiment is shared by many people in the House and across the country. Perhaps those comments were compounded by the lack of a proper replacement for the royal tournament as was previously promised, a lack of clarity as to why circumstances had changed and about what was to follow and by the fact that we do not really have a national event to mark the service of our armed forces and to recognise their tremendous efforts for this country.
	I note that the Minister has announced the formal establishment of a veterans' day on 27 June, which we are told will happen each year and will act as an important opportunity to thank veterans for their contribution to our life in the UK today. In his letter to all hon. Members, he said:
	"It will be a day to focus on veterans of all ages and to celebrate and raise public awareness of their achievements and the contribution they have made and continue to make to society. We will also seek to highlight the support and advice available to veterans from official and voluntary sources and the role of ex-Service organisations. Finally the day will offer opportunities to celebrate the service by those currently serving in the Armed Forces".
	I welcome this event. It is important that we have a veterans' day to mark the service of all those who have made such a huge contribution to the life of this country. Obviously, we have Remembrance day each November, on which we remember those who have given their lives in the service of this country, and it is important that we continue to recognise their service year after year. I am proud that we have a significant Remembrance day event each year in Hornchurch; it is an important part of our calendar, and rightly so. I hope that veterans' day will sit alongside that, to recognise the veterans of the armed forces who have given service to this country, but who are still very much alive, even though they may have suffered injuries and other trauma as a consequence of that service.
	I welcome the proposals for a veterans' day. I hope that it will be a successful event every year, that it will result in the individual events that the Minister hopes will take place up and down the country, and that it will become an important part of our national life. Before this debate, I was heartened to see that there was to be some recognition of armed forces personnel, and that the veterans' day was in part intended to recognise the service of current members of the armed forces.
	I was also heartened to see that the inaugural event would involve a high-profile celebration in London. I wonder whether I may read into the Minister's announcement that that might be some kind of high-profile tattoo or replacement for the royal tournament, as was promised by Lord Robertson. However, the Minister's letter did not go on to say that the high-profile event in London would be an annual event. My concern, therefore, is that we could end up in a similar situation to the one that pertained before, namely, that we should be given the promise of an inaugural event to mark veterans' day, but that after that it would be spun off into smaller, more local or regional events—as the Minister's letter seems to suggest—important though those are.
	It is important to have a high-profile national event in London to attract the attention of the media and of the public to something as important as this. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify this matter because his proposals appear to be for a one-off event, rather than a commitment to an annual high-profile event in London that would act as a proper way to thank armed forces personnel, past and present.
	We need a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate the capabilities and sheer professionalism of our soldiers, sailors, air crew and support staff, and that was what the royal tournament did. It provided that focus. Yes, perhaps it needed reform, but it had the ability to garner support and to focus the attention of the television companies and the media generally on the tremendous work that our armed forces do in the service and defence of this country. Our armed forces do an outstanding job in defending this country and its interests overseas in increasingly difficult, dangerous and complicated situations. It is important that there is a significant national event in London, the capital, to recognise that work and show our appreciation for everything they do.
	The royal tournament provided that opportunity for 119 years. For all the men and women who put their lives on the line for this country, I urge the Minister and his Department to have a rethink and provide a suitable replacement for the royal tournament so that we have a proper opportunity to pay tribute to our armed forces personnel and everything they do.

Don Touhig: I thank the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) for his kind comments on my sartorial elegance this evening. I have just come from a dinner in Speaker's House, where I was addressing the armed forces parliamentary scheme. Due to the change of business, it was necessary to come to the Chamber as quickly as possible. Perhaps I shall set a new standard.
	I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and thank him for his early-day motion, in which he pays great compliment to the servicemen and women of this country. I am sure that we all agree with his sentiment that the vital work the services do should be publicly appreciated. Our difference will be on the best way to do that and, in particular, how best we inform the public about the work of our services.
	Historically, we have used a range of means to do that, including tournaments and tattoos, but those activities have, by necessity, changed and evolved with the times. Old formats have given way to new, and what once was a good way to inform and entertain people is no longer judged to be so.
	The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the royal tournament ran for 119 years, and for much of that time it was hugely popular. The then Secretary of State recognised that fact in the House in October 1999, when he paid a warm and well deserved tribute to those who had organised and participated in the tournament over the years. On the same occasion, however, he had to point out that attendance at the last few tournaments had dwindled quite considerably. In turn, that meant that the 1998 tournament incurred a loss of £400,000. The tournament was a charity, so making such a loss was a significant problem.
	There may have been a number of reasons for the fall in attendance, but we could not avoid the fact that, in part, it was due to changed public tastes and interests. The tournament was no longer attracting either the size or type of audience we wanted, which meant it no longer provided us with the showcase we needed.
	Those problems were compounded by the considerable demand on personnel that the tournament imposed. As the House was informed in October 1999, a minimum of 30,000 man-days per year were needed to run the tournament. Had it still met our publicity needs, that might have been justifiable, but when it no longer did so, the commitment became unacceptable. In sum, the royal tournament was an event of its time. It had served us well, but as times changed a new approach was required, as the hon. Gentleman conceded.
	The hon. Gentleman also rightly pointed out that the initial plan had been to replace the royal tournament with an annual tattoo on Horse Guards parade and a regional event. Those activities were referred to as the Defence 2000 series of events. Between 2000 and 2002, events did take place. There was a tattoo on Horse Guards, which he referred to, in 2000, and in 2002 the Royal Navy's international festival of the sea was used to showcase equipment and capability. They were a success, but circumstances and tastes were still changing.
	It has always been our aim to make the best use of existing regional events. The services already participate in hundreds of public events annually, as the hon. Gentleman conceded, and those range in size from school visits through to major set piece national events such as the royal international air tattoo at Fairford and the Edinburgh military tattoo. Those all provide opportunities to inform and educate the public on the outstanding contribution made by our servicemen and women.

Don Touhig: I cannot say. I believe that the tattoo is a special event in Edinburgh and that there are celebrations at that time, but I can speak only from experience of the royal tournament, whose audience was dwindling. What I say later may help the hon. Gentleman to understand my argument.
	I think the House will agree that since the announcement of the inception of the Defence 2000 series of events, our armed forces have been increasingly busy. I am sure that the House will also agree that operational commitments must always be paramount. In May 2004 my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence and the Minister responsible for the armed forces told the House that the Defence 2000 series was to be discontinued. The principal reason was that during a period of high levels of operational commitment and the associated demands placed on service family life, it was felt that the greatest benefits would be gained from focusing on existing events. Resources were already committed to those events, and many were already sharply focused on specific audiences such as visiting schools and potential recruits.
	However, the decision was also based on changing public tastes. Our research shows that people increasingly look to a more complex range of sources for their information. That applies particularly to the young people who are potential recruits, and who were once the backbone of those who attended the royal tournament.
	In the era of the internet and multi-channel television, tastes have changed and diversified. That does not mean that shows and events no longer have a place; rather, it means that we must now engage the public with a broader spectrum of more sophisticated approaches. Of course, our cadet organisations still provide a marvellous opportunity for young people around the country to enjoy challenging activities in a military context. Given the impressive range of events and activities in which the services are already involved, it was concluded that there was no longer a requirement for another military tattoo. Our position on that has not changed. For that reason, we cannot agree with the hon. Member for Hornchurch that we should examine the options for re-establishing an annual military tattoo in London.
	The hon. Gentleman also spoke about veterans day. Veterans day follows last year's very successful veterans awareness week. That week came at a difficult time. We experienced the July bombing, and the country rallied. There was also the special commemoration of the anniversary of the end of the second world war. We decided that there should be a veterans day every year. I have proposed 27 June: on whatever day of the week it falls, the date will remain the same. I believe that on that day there should be a national event of some sort in the capital.
	I also want it to be understood that veterans come in all shapes and sizes. Every year, 23,000 people leave the forces. A veteran is not necessarily someone who fought in the last war or did national service; a veteran could be someone in his thirties who has done some service and has now returned to civvy street. I want to convey that message to the country.
	When I attended an armistice parade in my constituency, I talked to a chap who was covered in medals. I said, "Today we are announcing the extension of the veterans badge." He said, "It does not apply to me, Don: I am not a veteran." I asked him what he meant. He said, "I did not fight in the last war." There is a perception that a veteran is someone who fought in the last war. We need to get the message across that veterans do come in all shapes and sizes, and in all ages. Although I think it important for us to have a national event in London, I hope that Members throughout the House will promote events in their constituencies to honour our veterans. Such events would not be intended to replicate armistice day, a solemn and special occasion on which we remember our dead. They would be more of a celebration of the commitment and sacrifices that people have made to our services over the years.